Length of Stay and Costs with Autologous Skin Cell Suspension Versus Split-Thickness Skin Grafts: Burn Care Data from US Centers.

Autor: Carter JE; University Medical Center Burn Center, New Orleans, LA, USA., Carson JS; The Loyola Burn Center, Maywood, IL, USA., Hickerson WL; Memphis, TN, USA., Rae L; Temple Burn Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA., Saquib SF; UMC Lions Burn Care Center and Kirk Kerkorian, School of Medicine at UNLV, Las Vegas, NV, USA., Wibbenmeyer LA; University of Iowa, Iowa, IA, USA., Becker RV; Russell Becker Consulting, Chicago, IL, USA., Walsh TP; AVITA Medical, 28159 Avenue Stanford, Suite 220, Valencia, CA, 91355, USA. twalsh@avitamedical.com., Sparks JA; AVITA Medical, 28159 Avenue Stanford, Suite 220, Valencia, CA, 91355, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Advances in therapy [Adv Ther] 2022 Nov; Vol. 39 (11), pp. 5191-5202. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Sep 14.
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02306-y
Abstrakt: Introduction: Autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) significantly reduces donor skin requirements versus conventional split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) for thermal burn treatment. In analyses using the Burn-medical counter measure Effectiveness Assessment Cost Outcomes Nexus (BEACON) model, ASCS was associated with shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and cost savings versus STSG. This study hypothesized that daily practice data from the USA would support these findings.
Methods: Electronic medical record data from 500 healthcare facilities (January 2019-August 2020) were used to match adult patients who received inpatient burn treatment with ASCS (± STSG) to patients treated with STSG alone on the basis of sex, age, percent total body surface area (TBSA), and comorbidities. Based on BEACON analyses, LOS was assumed to represent 70% of total costs and used as a proxy to assess the data. Mean LOS, costs, and the incremental revenue associated with inpatient capacity changes were calculated.
Results: A total of 151 ASCS and 2443 STSG patients were identified: 63.0% were male and average age was 44.5 years. Eight-one matches were made between cohorts. LOS was 21.7 days with ASCS and 25.0 days with STSG alone (difference 3.3 days [13.2%]). LOS was lower with ASCS than STSG in four of five TBSA intervals. The LOS difference led to hospital bed cost savings of $25,864 per ASCS patient; overall cost savings were $36,949 per patient. Similar cost savings were observed in TBSA groupings < 20% and ≥ 20%. The reduced LOS with ASCS translated into an increased capacity of 2.2 inpatients/bed annually, which increased hospital revenue by $92,283/burn unit bed annually.
Conclusions: Real-world data show that ASCS (± STSG) is associated with reduced LOS and cost savings versus STSG alone across all burn sizes, supporting the validity of the BEACON analyses. ASCS use may also increase patient capacity and throughput, leading to increased hospital revenue.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: